If any of you are paying attention to what our enemies are saying at that odious cesspit known as A Voice for Men, you might have noticed a new post today about police cowardice in Vancouver, after John the Other had his propaganda ripped down by the local Femistasi.

I was there. On the side of the Femistasi. And I am happy to report that I may have actually flipped him off. He'd be more likely to be the vocal one running around bloviating about free speech, right?

edit: looked back in the Pharyngula archives, found the videos...I FLIPPED OFF JOHN THE OTHER TODAY AND HELPED TO RIP HIS POSTERS DOWN =D =D -jumps up and down super excitedly and happily-

"...authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name).”" -Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarianspronouns: she

I'm sorry but i don't agree with this, if you want you can go put some of your posters there so that your message gets displayed too or something like that, but ripping his posters simply wasn't a nice thing to do.

Yes, because it's so terribly crucial to be unflaggingly nice to someone actively advocating a hate group.

... Please forgive the snark.

Edit to add: I've just read "their" side of things. As expected, he's presented as the victim. There's also a not so thinly veiled allegation in there about threatening behavior ("they were brandishing box cutters"). I don't care about being nice, and I do doubt that any threats were made (or I expect someone would've been arrested), but let me be absolutely clear that physical violence is not the answer. A+ does not endorse violence or threats of violence. Just for the record. Not that there was any confusion on the subject.

Veggos wrote:I'm sorry but i don't agree with this, if you want you can go put some of your posters there so that your message gets displayed too or something like that, but ripping his posters simply wasn't a nice thing to do.

You can take your tone-trolling to the Vancouver police, who told JtO and his buddy that if their posters are being taken down by other people in the community, the community doesn't approve of the message and JtO should stop stirring up conflict by re-posting messages the community has shown that they don't want.

SubMor wrote:There's also a not so thinly veiled allegation in there about threatening behavior ("they were brandishing box cutters"). I don't care about being nice, and I do doubt that any threats were made (or I expect someone would've been arrested), but let me be absolutely clear that physical violence is not the answer. A+ does not endorse violence or threats of violence. Just for the record. Not that there was any confusion on the subject.

One person did have a box cutter, but it was being used solely to remove posters,

"...authoritarian followers feel empowered to isolate and segregate, to humiliate, to persecute, to beat, and to kill in the middle of the night, because in their heads they can almost hear the loudspeakers announcing, “Now batting for God’s team, his designated hitter, (their name).”" -Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarianspronouns: she

Actually, I'm pretty sure that if they were in America, a white supremacist group would have just as much right to put up posters in public as anyone else does, and it would be the people ripping them down that would get in trouble with the police. And don't use the line "the community doesn't want it so they don't have the right" because in many places that same logic would keep an atheist group from advertising their mere existence. You don't have to like someone or their ideas to recognize their rights.

But obviously this wasn't in America.

The bigger question would be, did these people have the right to put up their posters in the area, and/or were they suppressing another group's right to do the same in the process?

JohnTheOther and A Voice for Men are not nice. They do not need to be handled with kid gloves.

They post their misogynistic woman-hating crap, it gets taken down.

Would you be so quick to advocate leaving it up if it were a poster about white supremacism? Somehow I don’t think so.

If so, why is sexism acceptable and racism not?

Interesting mental gymnastics going on here considering the posters advocated not hating anyone based on skin color or gender. The posters also said "You don't hate women do you? Of course not, because you're a decent human being."

Keep pretending you aren't the censoring bigots only interested in female supremacy and your own shitty agenda. If this happened to any other group you would defend them, you people disgust me. Being a white male with opinions and problems doesn't make anything you say hate speech. Not every white male leads an amazing, privileged life.

I've registered just to congratulate you, and really most of the supportive replies here, on sinking below the level of most Creationists. Imagine Atheism signs being torn down in London and groups of Muslims cheerfully laughing and encouraging censorship and vandalism. At some point you people have lost yourselves and become what you protest. You've given up your humanity and your civility instead of taking the high moral ground and being the better people. You're lashing out and ridiculing dissenting opinions instead of maintaining an even temperament while continuing the slow work of educating people and shifting public opinion.

And that's a shame. You're supposed to be a shining beacon in a world of ignorance. Truth and Justice in an unfair world. And now you're carrying on like the worst censors and propagandists. Now you're carrying on like the Catholic Church of old with its Inquisitions and Witch Hunts.

I've hidden this next reply because it got lenghtier than anticipated and I don't wish it to draw from my above point.

eNeMeE wrote:They do compared to a woman/person of colour/other marginalized group in the same situation.

This is mostly false. Everyone has trials. Everyone has troubles. Swift Wind is my real name. I'm a card-carrying Cherokee and Muscogee Native American. Born and raised on Cherokee tribal land, even. (I am nearly full-blooded, with only one non-Native ancestor in my recorded family history, a Caucasian of Spanish descent two generations ago.) I have success and fellowship in America. The only disadvantage I've ever had was economic. I had ample opportunity to overcome those challenges and I did so. The problem is Income Inequality. That some people are born poor and others have their college tuition paid while they're still in the womb.

This emphasis on gender and color would likely dissolve, in my opinion, if we solved Income Inequality and improved our education system. Though you might note that females lead males a great deal in College entrance. And Asians are a huge percentage of attendees at top-tier schools. So if you're concerned with balance and equality, you'd want to improve male college attendance and see about making STEM fields more attractive to females, and you'd want to draw more whites, blacks, and hispanics in general. Seems like White males are third place or worse in this category. So privileged.

This is a free speech issue, and you are on the wrong side. Tearing down their posters, just because you don´t like their message, is an infringement of their freedom of speech and expression.Calling the poster "hate speech" is not an excuse, and actually quite silly because this:http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-c ... rights.pdfis the poster we are talking about. You´ll find plenty of hateful speech on the "A voice for men" website, but this particular poster could hardly be less offensive.The excuse that the organisation which designed a poster is a "hate group" according to the SPLC is also silly because the SPLC did not classify the website "A voice for men" as a hate group, see:http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/1 ... activists/Quote:"It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence."And even if they actually would be a hate group (the SPLC classification hardly matters for that since this did not even happen in the USA), this would not mean that they no longer have the rights to express their views.

If you don´t like the message of a poster, design your own posters and hang them up right next to it, counter speech with other speech - vandalism and bullying will not convince anyone that you are right and they are wrong.

Swift Wind wrote:And that's a shame. You're supposed to be a shining beacon in a world of ignorance. Truth and Justice in an unfair world. And now you're carrying on like the worst censors and propagandists. Now you're carrying on like the Catholic Church of old with its Inquisitions and Witch Hunts.

Nope, not true. ...Hey, that's fun.

Worst censors and propagnadists? No, that's a stretch beyond sanity. Catholic Church and Inquisitions and Witch Hunts? ...is there a modified Godwin that applies at this point?Shining beacon? No, just sick of a bunch of the crap that passes unopposed and often encouraged in atheist and skeptical circles.

Swift Wind wrote:

eNeMeE wrote:They do compared to a woman/person of colour/other marginalized group in the same situation.

This is mostly false. Everyone has trials. Everyone has troubles. Swift Wind is my real name. I'm a card-carrying Cherokee and Muscogee Native American. Born and raised on Cherokee tribal land, even. (I am nearly full-blooded, with only one non-Native ancestor in my recorded family history, a Caucasian of Spanish descent two generations ago.) I have success and fellowship in America. The only disadvantage I've ever had was economic. I had ample opportunity to overcome those challenges and I did so. The problem is Income Inequality. That some people are born poor and others have their college tuition paid while they're still in the womb.

This emphasis on gender and color would likely dissolve, in my opinion, if we solved Income Inequality and improved our education system. Though you might note that females lead males a great deal in College entrance. And Asians are a huge percentage of attendees at top-tier schools. So if you're concerned with balance and equality, you'd want to improve male college attendance and see about making STEM fields more attractive to females, and you'd want to draw more whites, blacks, and hispanics in general. Seems like White males are third place or worse in this category. So privileged.

Congratulations on missing the "in the same situation." part. White males are privileged. If you want that explained there's this nice subforum dedicated to education where you might get a better response.

The preceding post represents only my interpretation/understanding of whatever I was talking about; no link should be made to anyone else, particularly A+ as a whole

I make horrible jokes. kindly throw something at me if it's too terrible

Hi, I'm new to this site. If someone wouldn't mind, I would be interested to see an article by Johntheother or (his?) website that shows women as something to be hated so I can get a better view on the issue. Thanks.

Arakes wrote:And even if they actually would be a hate group (the SPLC classification hardly matters for that since this did not even happen in the USA), this would not mean that they no longer have the rights to express their views.

That's a good point as, unfortunately, bill C-380 did not become law (well, maybe not unfortunately - I haven't read the full text of it). However this did not happen in the US and we don't consider free speech to be as important as you do - we have laws against hate speech, and many of us are quite happy that they exist.

I don't want the KKK to be a legal organization, and thankfully, they aren't here.

Arakes wrote:Tearing down their posters, just because you don´t like their message, is an infringement of their freedom of speech and expression.

Nope, it ain't. Suppression of free speech requires government intervention.

The preceding post represents only my interpretation/understanding of whatever I was talking about; no link should be made to anyone else, particularly A+ as a whole

I make horrible jokes. kindly throw something at me if it's too terrible

cobrix wrote:Hi, I'm new to this site. If someone wouldn't mind, I would be interested to see an article by Johntheother or (his?) website that shows women as something to be hated so I can get a better view on the issue. Thanks.

Just google "A voice for men" - you´ll find plenty of hateful comments directed at feminists. Also, they are associated with a website where guys can upload names and pictures of women who allegedly made false rape accusations (i.e. an online witch hunt).

That's a good point as, unfortunately, bill C-380 did not become law (well, maybe not unfortunately - I haven't read the full text of it). However this did not happen in the US and we don't consider free speech to be as important as you do - we have laws against hate speech, and many of us are quite happy that they exist.

I´m not aware of the free speech laws in Canada, but I would be surprised if you could argue that the poster in question constitutes "hate speech" under any reasonable definition of the term. Based on the little information I could find on wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... try#CanadaI guess it would classify as "hate speech" if it would promote hate against women - but how would you try to argue that the poster in question does that ?

Nope, it ain't. Suppression of free speech requires government intervention.

I don´t understand this objection - do you mean that only the state can suppress free speech but private individuals cannot ?

cobrix wrote:Hi, I'm new to this site. If someone wouldn't mind, I would be interested to see an article by Johntheother or (his?) website that shows women as something to be hated so I can get a better view on the issue. Thanks.

Just google "A voice for men" - you´ll find plenty of hateful comments directed at feminists. Also, they are associated with a website where guys can upload names and pictures of women who allegedly made false rape accusations (i.e. an online witch hunt).

By comments, do you mean the people who read the article, or comments made in the articles because it can be quite difficult to control a userbase while still maintaining freedom of speech. And how are they associated? Thanks

By comments, do you mean the people who read the article, or comments made in the articles because it can be quite difficult to control a userbase while still maintaining freedom of speech. And how are they associated? Thanks

Mostly the people who comment on the articles, but sometimes also in the articles themselves (an article still linked to on the main page calls Rebecca Watson a "lying, stupid whore", repeatedly - to name one example).Just go to the website and judge for yourself.

Arakes wrote:I don´t understand this objection - do you mean that only the state can suppress free speech but private individuals cannot ?

Yes. Is this not a generally accepted definition wherever you are? A company requiring that you not say certain things is not considered suppression of free speech, a person requiring that you not say certain things in their house does not suppress free speech, and someone shouting over you is not considered suppression of free speech. Nor is disfiguring your message, nor taking it down, nor covering it up. It may be an asshole move, but it isn't suppression of free speech.

The preceding post represents only my interpretation/understanding of whatever I was talking about; no link should be made to anyone else, particularly A+ as a whole

I make horrible jokes. kindly throw something at me if it's too terrible

Arakes wrote:Mostly the people who comment on the articles, but sometimes also in the articles themselves (an article still linked to on the main page calls Rebecca Watson a "lying, stupid whore", repeatedly - to name one example).Just go to the website and judge for yourself.

After reading the article you mentioned and the Rebecca Watson article, I would say that the Rebbecca Watson article is more hateful to a gender as a whole than the AVFM article. She seems to imply than all men would tell her to "kill herself" or "get herself raped" when in fact only a small (but vocal) minority have. While I agree that calling her a lying, stupid whore isn't the right way to go about it, surely you can see the point that the author is making? That anyone with a strong, controversial opinion on the internet is likely to get hate-mail, not just feminists.

Arakes wrote:I don´t understand this objection - do you mean that only the state can suppress free speech but private individuals cannot ?

Yes. Is this not a generally accepted definition wherever you are? A company requiring that you not say certain things is not considered suppression of free speech, a person requiring that you not say certain things in their house does not suppress free speech, and someone shouting over you is not considered suppression of free speech. Nor is disfiguring your message, nor taking it down, nor covering it up. It may be an asshole move, but it isn't suppression of free speech.

Well, JohnTheOther apparently had permission by the owner of the construction site to hang up the posters (I haven´t fact-checked this claim). Ianal, but I think that tearing them down or vandalizing them would be entirely legal in countries where posters are legally litter and petty vandalism in countries where they are not. But, ignoring the legal details, tearing them down was a suppression of his rights of freedom of expression in the colloquial (not the legal) sense - and we as atheists should know that because we have to argue this every single time our posters are torn down or vandalized.Tearing them down was a stupid move - it does not silence them (quite the opposite - it is giving them more attention) and it will convince no one who is sitting on the fence on this issue that the Men´s Rights Movement is wrong / hateful / what have you (again, quite the opposite - the people opposing the Men´s Rights Movement look like foolish bullies in this particular event)